World Families Forums - How does the U106 variance in Ireland compare to that in England and elsewhere?

ARCHIVAL COPY

WorldFamilies has changed our Forum Operating system and migrated the postings from the prior system. We hope that you’ll find this new system easier to use and we expect it to manage spammers much better. If you can’t find an old posting, please check our Legacy Forum to see if you can see the old posting there.

Are we all agreed that if U106 is only 4000 years old and it is significantly younger in the Low Countries (and apparently germany, Denmark etc) then its arrival west of Poland must be no earlier than the mid-later Bronze Age. I cant really see past that basic logic if the same reasoning is applied to U106 as is applied to p312 and its clades.

Are we all agreed that if U106 is only 4000 years old and it is significantly younger in the Low Countries (and apparently germany, Denmark etc) then its arrival west of Poland must be no earlier than the mid-later Bronze Age. I cant really see past that basic logic if the same reasoning is applied to U106 as is applied to p312 and its clades.

Time estimates are just that, but I think U106 must be between 4-5K years old.

I have not seen where it is significantly younger in the Low Countries, though. If I remember correctly, U106's age in Scandinavia was surprisingly young... however, let's wait until I finish updating my files so I can look at the variance again. There are substantially better subclade breakdowns, now.

Here is an opinion on the origin of U106 from one of their main hobbyist-researchers. He seems to have a lot of credibility on that U106 forum.

Quote from: Charles M

The L11s were confronted around Belgrade, with the Great Hungarian Plain, and major rivers running west or north. Essentially, my position is that the ones who went west were the ancestors of the P312s, and the ones who went north were the ancestors of the U106s.....

From Budapest, and along the Danube as you proceed west, there are various rivers that flow down from Bohemia into the Danube. Then, there are various significant rivers that flow north to the Baltic, notably, the Vistula and the Oder, both of which originate north of Budapest. From the Vistula, there are various rivers running east-west into NEE, and of course, there is the Baltic coast, and Scandinavia beyond.

While undoubtedly, some U106 penetration into this area came from the Rhine eastward along east-west running rivers in Germany, and along the Baltic coast, I would say, particularly if evidence holds of a higher concentration of older L48- in the NEE, that this argues for a U106 origin along the Danube, somewhere closer to the Budapest end than to the Rhine. Also, the high concentration of U106 in Austria suggests that U106 formed considerably east of the Rhine.

At the Rhine, obviously, the U106 moved down to where they would flourish most, in the Netherlands. As mentioned, they could take various east-west rivers across Germany, proceed to Denmark and into Scandinavia, and along the Baltic.

I've leaned towards an application of David Anthony's linguistic and archeological analysis. He placed the pre-Germanic PIE dialects as proceeding from the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture and up along the eastern side of the Carpathian Mountains towards the Baltic. However, I admit that I've been looking for the genetic data to fit that. I can't really say that it does in any clear-cut form so Charles M's rendition having U106 come from the Hungarian plains and heading north has a lot of merit. I guess if I understood the ties between the Beakers and Corded Ware better I'd have a stronger opinion.

Are we all agreed that if U106 is only 4000 years old and it is significantly younger in the Low Countries (and apparently germany, Denmark etc) then its arrival west of Poland must be no earlier than the mid-later Bronze Age. I cant really see past that basic logic if the same reasoning is applied to U106 as is applied to p312 and its clades.

Time estimates are just that, but I think U106 must be between 4-5K years old.

I have not seen where it is significantly younger in the Low Countries, though. If I remember correctly, U106's age in Scandinavia was surprisingly young... however, let's wait until I finish updating my files so I can look at the variance again. There are substantially better subclade breakdowns, now.

Here is an opinion on the origin of U106 from one of their main hobbyist-researchers. He seems to have a lot of credibility on that U106 forum.

Quote from: Charles M

The L11s were confronted around Belgrade, with the Great Hungarian Plain, and major rivers running west or north. Essentially, my position is that the ones who went west were the ancestors of the P312s, and the ones who went north were the ancestors of the U106s.....

From Budapest, and along the Danube as you proceed west, there are various rivers that flow down from Bohemia into the Danube. Then, there are various significant rivers that flow north to the Baltic, notably, the Vistula and the Oder, both of which originate north of Budapest. From the Vistula, there are various rivers running east-west into NEE, and of course, there is the Baltic coast, and Scandinavia beyond.

While undoubtedly, some U106 penetration into this area came from the Rhine eastward along east-west running rivers in Germany, and along the Baltic coast, I would say, particularly if evidence holds of a higher concentration of older L48- in the NEE, that this argues for a U106 origin along the Danube, somewhere closer to the Budapest end than to the Rhine. Also, the high concentration of U106 in Austria suggests that U106 formed considerably east of the Rhine.

At the Rhine, obviously, the U106 moved down to where they would flourish most, in the Netherlands. As mentioned, they could take various east-west rivers across Germany, proceed to Denmark and into Scandinavia, and along the Baltic.

I've leaned towards an application of David Anthony's linguistic and archeological analysis. He placed the pre-Germanic PIE dialects as proceeding from the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture and up along the eastern side of the Carpathian Mountains towards the Baltic. However, I admit that I've been looking for the genetic data to fit that. I can't really say that it does in any clear-cut form so Charles M's rendition having U106 come from the Hungarian plains and heading north has a lot of merit. I guess if I understood the ties between the Beakers and Corded Ware better I'd have a stronger opinion.

Mike- you previously calculated variance and also cited Myres (see below) and in both cases it makes much of the U106 Germanic speaking areas look a 25-40% (ish) lower in variance than the area to the east. My reasoning is that is if U106 as a whole is say 5-4000 years old then the Germanic U106 must be 25-40% less if the variance is a direct indicator. That would indicate that the U106 of Germanic speaking Europe would be perhaps in the range of 1750BC-400BC, most likely somewhere in the middle of that range. In order to tighten that up I am keen to see just how the eastern U106 is higher in variance that U106 in the modern Germanic speaking block of continental Europe. The previous exploration of this is below this post. If U106 spread into the modern Germanic speaking zone of Europe only at a fairly advanced stage in the Bronze Age then this really would make it easier to look at the archaeological options. Certainly the previous calculations of variance seem to me to hint that U106 spread into the modern Germanic speaking block well past beaker times.

Are we all agreed that if U106 is only 4000 years old and it is significantly younger in the Low Countries (and apparently germany, Denmark etc) then its arrival west of Poland must be no earlier than the mid-later Bronze Age. I cant really see past that basic logic if the same reasoning is applied to U106 as is applied to p312 and its clades.

Time estimates are just that, but I think U106 must be between 4-5K years old.

I have not seen where it is significantly younger in the Low Countries, though. If I remember correctly, U106's age in Scandinavia was surprisingly young... however, let's wait until I finish updating my files so I can look at the variance again. There are substantially better subclade breakdowns, now.....

Mike- you previously calculated variance and also cited Myres (see below) and in both cases it makes much of the U106 Germanic speaking areas look a 25-40% (ish) lower in variance than the area to the east. My reasoning is that is if U106 as a whole is say 5-4000 years old then the Germanic U106 must be 25-40% less if the variance is a direct indicator. That would indicate that the U106 of Germanic speaking Europe would be perhaps in the range of 1750BC-400BC, most likely somewhere in the middle of that range. In order to tighten that up I am keen to see just how the eastern U106 is higher in variance that U106 in the modern Germanic speaking block of continental Europe. The previous exploration of this is below this post. If U106 spread into the modern Germanic speaking zone of Europe only at a fairly advanced stage in the Bronze Age then this really would make it easier to look at the archaeological options. Certainly the previous calculations of variance seem to me to hint that U106 spread into the modern Germanic speaking block well past beaker times.

For some time I have suggested an origin, or at least an expansion point, of U106 somewhere along the Danube in the region of Hungary/Romania, rather than a more northerly location such as Poland. I am not as keen on the suggestion that P312 went west and U106 north. I doubt the division will be that simplistic. There is ample P312 in the north, including Scandinavia. While there is little doubt that much of U106 went north, my suspicion is a part of it also went west.

That might be the case if it was all there is, but it isn't all there is. There is the tremendous weight of known history, rather than speculation.

I guess this is a glass half-empty versus half-full sort of perspective. I agree there is known history and it should be considered. Prehistory, by definition, is full of unknowns, but in a haplogroup like U106 that is 4-5K years old, at least half of its existence was prehistoric so a lot of things could have happened.

This is why I speculate U106 could have, at least to some degree, found a way to the Isles before the Anglo-Saxon Era... BTW, I'm defining Romano-Britain and Belgic immigration as pre-Anglo-Saxon Era as I think most would.

Quote from: rms2

I thought we were talking about Britain being 100% Celtic when it was possible to be Celtic, not before Celtic even existed. ....That is what I meant by "100% Celtic".

I understand that you meant was that Britain was 100% Celtic at a fairly late date, like Caesar's time. I was just making the point that claiming something was 100% is very difficult, especially when we know people were in the Isles long before the Celtic languages, speaking something else. Therefore, the languages of the Isles started out as 0% Celtic and you are standing on the argument that all of the other languages were completely wiped out by the times of Caesar. I don't think that can be proved, nor even 99% wiped out.

Quote from: rms2

... Of course the British Celts weren't a single nation, but they were formidable enough against other barbarians whose level of organization and military did not greatly exceed their own. Before they were beaten down by the much more advanced Romans, they very easily could have kept Germans from across the North Sea - people who lived on piles of manure erected in flood zones - at bay.

It is a fact that the Germans were kept at bay, penned up in the north, for centuries by the Celtic tribes of continental Europe. After the Romans broke the backs of the continental Celts, the Germans were free to flood south and west, which they subsequently did.

The Celtics were not well organized and unified, so to compare their ability to stop all incursions to being the same as the Romans is not a good analogy. I don't think the Normans are a good analogy either. Both of these groups were well organized and unified, compared to the Celts.

... but who said the that U106 people had to come into the Isles in pre-Anglo-Saxon times had to come by violence and force? We all know Gildas' story of Vortigern inviting in Anglo-Saxons, setting the stage for the Anglo-Saxon era. It's just a story but it is obvious that Celts had contact/exchange with people on the other side of the North Sea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VortigernOf course, Vortigern wasn't the last Celtic king to invite in foreigners. Irish king MacMurrough invited in the Normans. If Vortigern wasn't the last to invite foreigners, what is to say he had to be the first?....

Quote from: rms2

That's where we differ. The evidence says it is very likely that a U106 Irishman is descended from an historical period invader. That evidence, I think, is overwhelming.

It may be remotely (very remotely) possible that there were Gaelic U106ers in Ireland in the distant, ancient past, but does that seem at all likely?Really? Nah....So, I'm not going to tell a U106 Irishman he descends from the ancient Irish.Because I don't think he does.

I've never told a U106 Irishman that he descends from ancient Irish, and don't think I ever would.

I definitely agree that a U106 person in or from Ireland is likely to have Anglo-Saxon descent. I just think that is an over-generalization to assume that a U106 individual from Ireland that has a 4000 year-old haplogroup match (only) with people from England or Frisia has to be Anglo-Saxon. You need to get down to the cluster level. (Goldenhind where are you? I think you'd agree on that.) If all of the STR/cluster matches are from Frisia or SE England I think that is the answer, which may often be the case.

I suppose this is the glass of water perception thing again. You look at the glass and think there may be a drop or two of water so you might consider the glass essentially dry. I look at it and consider there might be enough for a drink.

I don't know, but for a haplogroup twice the age of an ethnic group, a lot can happen in prehistory. Well, I think I've bored enough folks on this part of the discussion. I'm looking for U106 data to see what we can find.

I didn't say the Celts' ability to stop invaders was analogous to that of the Romans. I said the Celts could hold off other barbarians who were no more sophisticated than they were (like early Germanics). The Romans were, of course, way beyond the capabilities of either Celts or Germans.

The Germans got lucky because the Romans ruined themselves just as the Germans were coming into their own. They got in on the decline and fall side of things. The Celts bore the brunt of the Romans when the Romans were still vigorous and climbing.

I don't think the very remote possibility that there was some ancient Irish U106 (a possibility oh so slight) should restrain us from concluding, based on the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, that an Irish U106 is descended from an historical period, Germanic-derived invader.

One could tell him the truth, but with the caveat, "Of course, there is a very slight possibility that U106 has been in Ireland longer than we know", but I think even that is probably too much and just muddying the waters.

There is one native Irish surname among them, that of the man in question - O'Boylan, given as "O'Baoigheallain". Most of the rest look English and Lowland Scots (probably "Scots-Irish" where they list Ireland as homeland).

There is one native Irish surname among them, that of the man in question - O'Boylan, given as "O'Baoigheallain". Most of the rest look English and Lowland Scots (probably "Scots-Irish" where they list Ireland as homeland).

There is even a Belgian Z156+ and two German Z156+ already.

Ancient Irish?

Surnames are such unreliable things to nail personal histories to, especially past a few generations. If I were a statistical outlier based on surname alone, I'd have to start thinking about the usual things leading to adoption of a surname.

I didn't say the Celts' ability to stop invaders was analogous to that of the Romans. I said the Celts could hold off other barbarians who were no more sophisticated than they were (like early Germanics). The Romans were, of course, way beyond the capabilities of either Celts or Germans.

The Germans got lucky because the Romans ruined themselves just as the Germans were coming into their own. They got in on the decline and fall side of things. The Celts bore the brunt of the Romans when the Romans were still vigorous and climbing.

I don't think the very remote possibility that there was some ancient Irish U106 (a possibility oh so slight) should restrain us from concluding, based on the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, that an Irish U106 is descended from an historical period, Germanic-derived invader.

One could tell him the truth, but with the caveat, "Of course, there is a very slight possibility that U106 has been in Ireland longer than we know", but I think even that is probably too much and just muddying the waters.

There is one native Irish surname among them, that of the man in question - O'Boylan, given as "O'Baoigheallain". Most of the rest look English and Lowland Scots (probably "Scots-Irish" where they list Ireland as homeland).

There is even a Belgian Z156+ and two German Z156+ already.

Ancient Irish?

I make it a policy never to evaluate other people's genealogy, folklore, etc. so I don't care anything about the person you are discussing - and don't really care too.... even if asked. I'll go back to the recommendation that I think Goldenhind would agree with - we need to go down to the cluster level and quit trying to place people ethnically based on 4000 year old haplogroups.

Okay, I think we've exhausted this for the data we have. I guess the glass has only a very, very remote chance of having a few drops of water in it so it is must be dry.

Surnames are such unreliable things to nail personal histories to, especially past a few generations. If I were a statistical outlier based on surname alone, I'd have to start thinking about the usual things leading to adoption of a surname.

I agree 100%. I've looked for L21 people in over 100 surname projects. Surname persistence isn't what it is cracked up to be.

This the the known SNP phylogeny for U106:R-U106R-U106/P107R-U106/L6R-U106/L217R-U106/Z18R-U106/Z18/Z14R-U106/Z18/Z14/L147R-U106/Z18/Z14/Z372R-U106/Z18/Z14/Z372/L257R-U106/Z18/L325R-U106/Z18/L653R-U106/Z381R-U106/Z381/Z156R-U106/Z381/Z156/L1R-U106/Z381/Z156/L1/L132.1R-U106/Z381/Z156/P89R-U106/Z381/Z156/L128R-U106/Z381/Z156/L128/L127.2R-U106/Z381/Z156/L782R-U106/Z381/Z301R-U106/Z381/Z301/U198R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47/L44R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47/L44/L46R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47/L44/L46/L164R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47/L44/L46/L164/L292R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L47/L44R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8/Z11R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8/Z11/Z12R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8/Z11/Z12/L148R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8/Z1R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8/Z1/Z6R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8/Z1/Z6/M157.2R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8/Z1/Z343R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z2/Z7/Z8/M365.4R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z326R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z326/L188R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/Z9/Z326/L696R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L200R-U106/Z381/Z301/L48/L693R-U106/Z301/L259R-U106/L199R-U106/L5

I can find 1960 confirmed U106+ haplotypes in FTDNA projects. 1407 of them are 67 STRs or better. Of those, 313 are 111 STR haplotypes.

There is one native Irish surname among them, that of the man in question - O'Boylan, given as "O'Baoigheallain". Most of the rest look English and Lowland Scots (probably "Scots-Irish" where they list Ireland as homeland).

There is even a Belgian Z156+ and two German Z156+ already.

Ancient Irish?

Surnames are such unreliable things to nail personal histories to, especially past a few generations. If I were a statistical outlier based on surname alone, I'd have to start thinking about the usual things leading to adoption of a surname.

They're not as reliable as as some other things - like dna - but it would be ridiculous to totally disregard them, especially where pretty obvious trends exist, as in this case.

What accounts for the lack of old Catholic, Gaelic surnames among U106?

A wave of mass English adoptions of otherwise Gaelic U106 male children?

Given the trend in this case, it is far more likely that the few old Irish surnames that do occur among U106 were acquired by adoption or NPE than otherwise.

I make it a policy never to evaluate other people's genealogy, folklore, etc. so I don't care anything about the person you are discussing - and don't really care too.... even if asked. I'll go back to the recommendation that I think Goldenhind would agree with - we need to go down to the cluster level and quit trying to place people ethnically based on 4000 year old haplogroups.

Okay, I think we've exhausted this for the data we have. I guess the glass has only a very, very remote chance of having a few drops of water in it so it is must be dry.

I don't care about his personal genealogy either, except that he was using it to generalize about U106 in Ireland. That invited scrutiny. If you publicly post about your genealogy, you invite examination and comment, especially if you do it in a confrontational, controversial manner.

The argument that because a y haplogroup is 4000 years old you can't say anything meaningful about the possible ethnic groups or tribes associated with it is fallacious. It's a little bit like a man who falls into a vat of manure denying that he smells because he was born 35 years ago and didn't smell like manure back then.

All of the y haplogroups are older than most modern ethnic groups. That doesn't mean they weren't still predominantly involved when a particular ethnic group came into being and/or expanded or that they cannot be closely connected to a tribal or ethnic group or groups.

I think the evidence that the vast vast majority of U106 in Ireland is of fairly recent provenance is overwhelming and undeniable.

But perhaps we are applying different standards of evidence here.

I am looking at the preponderance of the evidence.

Perhaps some of the rest of you are looking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

At this stage, I don't think we can get the latter, so, if that's your standard, of course you will hold out the possibility that a few stray U106ers could have been in Ireland in ancient or prehistoric times.

The argument that because a y haplogroup is 4000 years old you can't say anything meaningful about the possible ethnic groups or tribes associated with it is fallacious.

I've never said you can't say anything meaningful about a 4000 year old haplogroup. Applying an ethnicity to a individual person based on a 4000 year old haplogroup is what I challenge. You could be right in you evaluation of this fellow and you probably are. I agree, but it doesn't mean you are right.

Quote from: rms2

All of the y haplogroups are older than most modern ethnic groups. That doesn't mean they weren't still predominantly involved when a particular ethnic group came into being and/or expanded or that they cannot be closely connected to a tribal or ethnic group or groups.

I'm glad to see you are using terminology like "predominately" rather than "100%". To apply the generalization to an individual could be incorrect is my point.

Quote from: rms2

I am looking at the preponderance of the evidence.Perhaps some of the rest of you are looking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In terms of individual genealogies, probably so. I have different standards there than for speculations about ancient groups than commentary applying generalizations to specific cases/individuals.

Note that I didn't say you said to totally disregard surnames. You said they were unreliable. I replied that surnames are not as reliable as some other things but that totally disregarding them would be ridiculous, especially where there is an obvious trend, as in this case.

My point was that they may be less reliable than other types of evidence, but they're not totally worthless.

The argument that because a y haplogroup is 4000 years old you can't say anything meaningful about the possible ethnic groups or tribes associated with it is fallacious.

I've never said you can't say anything meaningful about a 4000 year old haplogroup. Applying an ethnicity to a individual person based on a 4000 year old haplogroup is what I challenge. You could be right in you evaluation of this fellow and you probably are. I agree, but it doesn't mean you are right.

Quote from: rms2

All of the y haplogroups are older than most modern ethnic groups. That doesn't mean they weren't still predominantly involved when a particular ethnic group came into being and/or expanded or that they cannot be closely connected to a tribal or ethnic group or groups.

I'm glad to see you are using terminology like "predominately" rather than "100%". To apply the generalization to an individual could be incorrect is my point.

Quote from: rms2

I am looking at the preponderance of the evidence.Perhaps some of the rest of you are looking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In terms of individual genealogies, probably so. I have different standards there than for speculations about ancient groups than commentary applying generalizations to specific cases/individuals.

Look, some folks around here do use the age of y haplogroups to assert that it really is impossible to generalize about them in any way and connect them to historical tribes and/or ethnic groups.

Regarding an individual and his genealogy, I would say both are part of the history of the place his ancestors came from. There is nothing wrong with telling him what you know about that and the haplogroups involved.

To take an extreme case, if I encountered a man who got an E1b1a result whose family had lived in Detroit for a long time, but who insisted his y-dna is Swedish, I would gently try to disabuse him of that notion and honestly tell him that E1b1a is primarily a Subsaharan African y haplogroup and that Detroit is well known for its large African-American population.

Could there have been some E1b1a in Sweden in ancient times? Could this hypothetical man be descended from one of them?

Sure.

Anything is possible.

But how likely is that second scenario really?

Again, I know that is an extreme example, but the basic principle is the same.

I also feel pretty comfortable believing, as I do, that all of you know darned well that U106 in Ireland is not at all likely to be ancient.

I'll go back to the recommendation that I think Goldenhind would agree with - we need to go down to the cluster level and quit trying to place people ethnically based on 4000 year old haplogroups.

Sorry to leave you without any support, but as I said previously I don't care to get involved in another argument about U106. I have stated my view often enough that it doesn't really need to be repeated, though I have been surprised by how often it has been misunderstood.

I think you know I generally agree with much of what you have said on the subject. I think your analogy of the glass is particularly apt- in fact, I have used it myself before. There may be very little water in a glass, but there may still be enough for a sip.

Your chart of U106 subclades underscores my long held position that it is unwise to view U106 as monolithic, which seems to be the current position of almost everyone. I suppose it is possible that every single U106 subclade could have an identical distribution and history, but I would be very surprised if that were to be the case. And if those geneticists who believe there is a new SNP every few generations or so, what we now see may really be just the tip of the iceberg.

On the crucial question of whether U106 could have settled in the British Isles before the Anglo-Saxons, perhaps even as early as the Bronze Age, I can see no reason to dismiss the possibility out of hand. But just because it is possible, it doesn't mean that it actually happened. I think there is some evidence to support such a scenario, but it is capable of other interpretations. Those who deny the possibility will always choose an interpretation that supports their position.

I am hopeful that a full analysis of U106 subclades, which has barely begun, which eventually shed some light on the subject.